The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission was called to order by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown at 9:10 a.m. He said the Commission was happy to be meeting in Loa and welcomed all those in attendance.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Clyde moved to approve the minutes of the Commission Meeting held in Salt Lake City on June 17, 1994. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and passed unanimously.

Region 4 Construction/Maintenance Project StatusChairman Brown turned the Chair to Commissioner Larkin for the portion of the meeting dealing with local area issues. Commissioner Larkin introduced Region 4 Director Dale Peterson, Region 4 Roadway Design Engineer Clark Mackay, and Richfield District Engineer Ross Christensen. He asked them to present information on construction and maintenance projects in the areas of Wayne, Piute, Sanpete and Sevier Counties. Also introduced was Dana Meier, the newly-appointed Cedar City District Engineer.

Ross Christensen said he was very happy with the maintenance program in the Richfield District over the past year. They put out projects totaling $1.6 million on the contractual maintenance program which included about $1 million on seal coat projects. They also completed some pavement jacking projects. He noted they are doing the pavement jacking when the areas are detected rather than letting them become so severe they get complaints. By keeping up with this work a good ride is retained on the highway and complaints are minimized. They have also implemented a guardrail upgrading project to replace much of their sub-standard guardrail. Ross feels the contractual maintenance program has been very successful and has elevated their maintenance program immensely. He complimented management who supports that program.

He continued that the District's own maintenance budget was about $8 million. They completed all their projects and the maintenance staff did a good job. He noted they have 128 Adopt-A-Highway groups in the Richfield District which equates to nearly 300 miles of highway being kept "litter free" which allows our own Maintenance staff to spend time doing other things. He feels it is a good program.

Commissioner Weston asked if they had ever had any accidents with the Adopt-A-Highway groups. Ross replied they had been accident free.

For the upcoming fiscal year the Richfield District has scheduled about $1.3 million worth of chip seal projects, $750,000 in overlays and slurry seals, they will continue the slab jacking projects, and are going to do a large concrete joint reseal on I-70. There will be a project on Main Street in Monroe to replace existing curb and gutter, and the Red Canyon tunnels on SR-12 near Bryce Canyon will be re-gunnited and "reconstructed" this summer.

Aurora Road Added to State SystemRoss wanted to make the Commission aware that UDOT will be taking the Aurora Road onto the State System. It currently is a county road, but is ready to go on the system now. It takes off from 24 South of Aurora, runs through Aurora and intersects SR-50 at Denmark Wash. The road provides more direct access from I-70 at Sigurd, through Aurora to SR-50 then over to I-15.

Ross said he received a call from a county commissioner recently saying the parcels have been acquired and as far as they are concerned they have completed all their obligations to get the road onto the State System.

Clint Topham explained that a request from Sevier County and Aurora City to place this highway on the state system came before the Transportation Commission several years ago. The Commission passed a resolution on February 14, 1992 accepting it as a state highway on the condition that we receive the widened right-of-way. Aurora City came back and asked that they not have to provide a wider right-of-way where curb and gutter was already in place and the Commission accepted that condition. As soon as the right-of-way was cleared then the resolution would take effect and the highway would come onto the state system. Apparently that right-of-way has now been cleared. Clint continued that staff had not planned to bring the matter back to the Commission for further action because they had already taken the necessary action.

Ross continued that the road is in very poor condition and it doesn't even come close to meeting our requirements for a State highway. They must have some funds to do some improvement work on it immediately, such as drainage, signing, etc. He said he would be applying for some funds through the Maintenance Division for that work.

Ross noted that former County Commissioner Gene Mendenhall had stated he would be in attendance at the meeting to make another plea to get the road turned over to the state immediately.

There was discussion about the condition of the road. Ross explained in the past a sewer job was done and Aurora Main Street was torn up, and after the cuts were backfilled the road was extremely rough. At that point Richfield District Director Sterling Davis and Howard Richardson wrote letters and from those letters we did get some action and Aurora town did put a thin overlay on the highway, so the driving surface through the town is fair. However, the area from Aurora to SR-50 is very narrow and is in poor condition. There are two structures which go from the edge of the oil right into the canal; they are only about 20 feet wide.

Commissioner Weston stated there definitely needs to be some improved signing on the highway. There is no signing indicating access to SR-24 through Aurora.

There was additional discussion about the condition of the highway and the improvements which will be needed.

Region 4 Construction/Maintenance Project Status - continuedClark Mackay discussed the construction program and the projects which have been recently advertised and those currently under design.

There are three major interstate projects currently under construction:

I-70, Gooseberry to Spring Canyon

I-70, Whitehouse to North Cisco

I-15, Meadow to North Fillmore

Also under construction is the Escalante River Bridge, and the Delta Bypass should be under construction within the next few weeks.

A project on SR-262, Aneth to the Colorado line, was advertised last week; the project to replace the Sevier River Bridge on SR-89, .5 miles south of Sevier Junction will be advertised this week. Within 30 days they expect to advertise a Sevier River Bridge replacement on SR-62 east of Kingston Junction.

Projects they hope to get advertised this fall include the next section of SR-9; SR-89, Circleville to Junction; and SR-18 from Snow Canyon State Park to Veyo, plus several other little bridge replacement projects.

There are currently three projects in the program in Wayne County, and all three are in the concept development phase:

SR-24, Sulphur Creek Bridge Replacement 3.4 miles east of Torrey

SR-24, So. City Limits of Loa to 300 W. in Bicknell (lane leveling and overlay; no widening)

SR-72, from the jct. of SR-24 to Mill Meadow Road (where Forest Service project began).

Commissioner Clyde asked Clark if any relocation or realignment was planned from the Mill Meadow to Loa section of the Fremont. Clark indicated they have started some very preliminary things and are looking at about six different alignments through that area. One of the problems with the existing alignment is if they do much widening it will wipe out many houses, so they are looking at different alternatives to reduce the impacts.

Clint Topham added that under ISTEA there was special funding for scenic byways, and there are two projects which have been funded in the Region 4 area:

SR-12, Bryce Canyon to Torrey, is currently under construction and about 70% complete.

In the Huntington area we are doing a project in conjunction with U. S. Forest Service who was to do the environmental document. They are in that process now and until they complete the environmental work we will do nothing on the project.

Dale Peterson stressed how the Region wants to work closely with local governments in the area. It is his intent to be more pro-active and get better acquainted with the local officials throughout the Region to explain to them the process of giving input to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). They would like to make that a continuous process throughout the year so their input can be considered along with all the other projects throughout the general area. They feel if they can do a better job up front getting the appropriate input it will be more beneficial to the local governments as well as to UDOT.

Public CommentsThere was no one present from the local communities to provide public comments. Commissioner Lewis said he had spoken with some citizens earlier and they had indicated to him that mayors from a couple of communities may attend the meeting later.

Commissioner Larkin indicated if anyone showed up he would invite their comments.

Development Adjacent to I-15/Proposed Interchange at MP-13, Washington CityCommissioner Larkin introduced Mayor Terrill Clove of Washington City; Scott Hirschi of State Trust Lands Administration; Bob Barker and Meredith Anderson of Green Spring Enterprises, the development group, who were in attendance to make a presentation concerning planned development adjacent to I-15 at Washington City.

Mayor Clove explained there is currently only one interchange to Washington City. There is a great deal of development going on in the area, so there is a new interchange proposed at Milepost 13 which has been approved by the Federal Highway Administration. A feasibility study was done on the interchange which was paid for on a five-eights/three-eights basis--3/8 by Washington City, 5/8 by a special appropriation from the Legislature through State Lands and Forestry. If the interchange really goes in then it forms a commitment on the part of the city, and he committed that if the EIS becomes outdated--he understands they are only good for about three years--then Washington City is willing to pay for the update if they need to.

The Mayor continued that the existing interchange at MP-10 has only a two-lane road connecting to it and running under the I-15 structure, and it needs to be widened. He said that UDOT has gone on record saying that in order to close that interchange down to widen it, there needs to be another access to Washington City which should be at MP-13.

Mayor Clove said their presentation is basically to familiarize the Commission and UDOT staff with all the studies and planning which has gone into the new interchange at MP-13, and the proposed development that will and can take place around that.

Mr. Bob Barker distributed a booklet with maps and information on the proposed development of Stone Ridge at Green Spring. He read from a letter which said:

"We are here to present a proposed plan for development of State School Trust Land and private land adjacent to I-15 and emanating from a proposed new interchange at Mile 13.

"This information is presented by request of Washington City and with the approval of the Utah State School Trust Land Administration. The presentation is similar to a more detailed delivery made before the State Board of Lands and Forestry on March 17, 1994 and to a special ad hoc planning committee of the Washington City Council and staff on May 17, 1994. The land in question is a triangular piece of approximately 1,190 acres in Washington County, further identified as a portion of north Washington City. The boundaries are I-15 on the south, a negotiated survey line separating developable areas from areas designated as critical "no take" tortoise habitat on the north, and the Green Spring Golf Course community on the west. For purposes of easy identification, we have tentatively selected the name Stone Ridge at Green Spring, inasmuch as these two prominent geographic features are the most recognizable elements of this land.

"The planning product hereunder shown is the culmination of a process essentially begun in August 1988 in response to a request for making certain State School Trust lands available for development. It is also the resultant product of many interactive planning efforts by various governmental and private agencies whose considerations included urban planning, environmental issues such as critical habitat, wetlands, water supply, waste deposit, geologic constraints, and access corridors and traffic considerations.

"This product further incorporates previous studies pertaining to the proposed new freeway interchange as well as current Washington City planning projects for water development and urban buildout. Finally, the developmental area shown is an abutting and natural radiating outgrowth of previous developments in Washington City, including the Green Spring Golf Course and related residential and commercial projects, all of which resulted from the emplacement of the Mile 10 I-15 interchange. The planning of the entire 1,200-acre area represents a unique opportunity to combine city, state, and private resources and planning expertise in a manner than can potentially produce the best of all worlds in terms of integrated communities/economies in planning, construction, and implementation of an optimal community and traffic network. This will also fix critical parameters such as utility and transportation corridors and thus ensure orderly systematic development and adherence to long-range objectives."

Mr. Barker presented a slide show and explained in some detail the proposed development and information contained in the booklet he had distributed.

He indicated the land has been accrued over many years by the State Land Board. It's very fine developable land which has been under great duress through the process of negotiating the desert tortoise habitat. Much of the land has been preserved, and it is a very viable piece of land for the state to get returns on the school trust. He noted the habitat area has been carefully defined and surveyed and has been tentatively agreed to as a division line between "no take" and "take" area, or allowance of removal of the tortoises. Mr. Barker indicated 1,100 acres is School Trust land, although there is some other land owned by Washington City and by private ownership adjacent to it.

Washington City is currently engaged in a $4 million expansion of their water system which affects this area of proposed development. Earlier studies (Bingham Study) estimated Washington City's population at 128,000 by 2015, compared to a 1990 census of 4,198. Approximately 1,940 families would be involved in this particular development area which indicates an increase of 6,000 to 7,000 population.

Mr. Barker indicated planning is critical to preserve transportation corridors; a corridor needs to be preserved for a possible future "Skyline Road," and the right-of-way for the existing frontage road needs to be widened and enhanced. Commissioner Weston said in the plans they were presenting it appeared on the map that the frontage road dead ended and Mr. Barker affirmed that was correct.

There is also land on the south side of I-15 which can be developed, some of which is State Trust Land, but most of it is private land and does not involve tortoise habitat. Mr. Barker stressed the importance of the new interchange at MP-13 to the development of the area.

Commissioner Weston asked if the developers were willing to participate in the cost of constructing the new interchange. Mr. Barker replied that those who were involved from a private standpoint were going to have to be participants in funding the interchange; it is going to require some private money. Anyone who presents this kind of proposed development has got to go to bat and provide appropriate funds and must be partners with the state and city. He said he also felt the State Trust Lands was a player. Also, Washington City has a huge dilemma in terms of tax base and available funds.

Mr. Barker commented that some of the interchanges at St. George were funded on an appropriation and allocation basis where the people that owned land were given assessments, and that worked successfully.

Commissioner Weston said the Commission feels some responsibility toward Washington City regarding the interchange. However, projects like this have been advanced in the program if we have financial participation from other sources, like the developers who benefit from the interchange.

Commissioner Larkin asked Mr. Hirschi if he could comment on the State Trust Lands issue and what their interest is in the project and their participation.

Mr. Hirschi explained that the State Trust Land Administration was created with legislation which passed this year which separated the State Trust Lands from Natural Resources. They are no longer a division of Natural Resources; they are a stand-alone agency not directly affiliated with any other state agency, but still part of state government. The bill that passed advocates a much more progressive and aggressive approach to the surface and subsurface development of school trust lands. It did away with the previous Land Board and set up a new Board of Trustees that are in place now and operating. They will operate independently, yet cooperatively with all other state agencies, including UDOT.

Mr. Hirschi indicated on a map the land around Washington City which is school and institutional trust land. They have thousands of acres of property that would be very positively affected by the construction of the new interchange at MP 13. He stated they have a great interest in seeing that happen and also recognize that it can't happen exclusively with federal funds. They are prepared to participate financially to a proportionate share of the land ownership that would be positively affected by the interchange construction.

Mr. Hirschi referred to the discussion about dead ending the frontage road as it runs to the north and east. He indicated they would not want it to dead end. They will need access to land they intend to hold for future development and extension of that frontage road would be that access. Mr. Barker interjected that plans for the frontage road dead ending were not cast in concrete. That was the purpose for early planning and discussion in order to receive input and meet the needs of everyone. There was additional discussion about continuation of the frontage road.

Mr. Hirschi referred to the tortoise habitat and said everyone needs to understand that there is no recognized line at this point, even though Mr. Barker shows one on the map and there has been discussion about the freeway being the demarkation. The reality is there is no line at this point. If you've got land with tortoise on it, or evidence that tortoise have been on it, then it is habitat and you have to deal with that. If the Habitat Conservation Plan eventually becomes successful then there will be some demarkation, probably exactly or similar to what Mr. Barker has shown. Some of the habitat will become developable, or what is known as "take," and other parts of it become preserved.

Commissioner Weston asked if he knew how soon that would be decided and Mr. Hirschi replied they thought the plan would be accepted more than a year ago, but it wasn't so a new plan has been submitted, and it was supposed to be approved before now. He didn't know when it would be accepted.

Commissioner Clyde asked Mr. Hirschi specifically how much the State Trust Lands was willing to contribute toward construction of the interchange. Mr. Hirschi said Mr. Barker had referred to a special improvement district concept which was used on the north and south interchanges in St. George, and that certainly would be a concept which would appeal to them. Mr. Hirschi said he would propose that circles be drawn around the interchange area, and those closest to the interchange would pay the highest amount of money and as the circles radiated farther away the participation would decrease. He said he had not figured a real amount and would only be guessing, but he thought about 50% of the land that would be positively affected by the interchange construction would be School Trust Land, and they would be willing to participate to that degree, once an exact percentage is determined. They would be willing to pay their share based on percentages of property owned as figured against the other private property owners, although they would want all the advantages that any of the other property owners would receive such as partial funding through federal funds, etc.

Director Zwick said there are several other major pieces of Trust Land in Washington County being developed, particularly the Gateway Project along SR-9. It was brought to his attention that there has been concern expressed that how we position ourselves on that Gateway project creates clear precedent on the other properties. If that is true the precedent would be there that that particular developer would bear all costs of the improvement at the access as well as the improvements at the existing Hurricane Interchange. However, he indicated he has been hearing a partnering effort coming forward on this project in Washington City and he would want to be cautious as a Department that we don't advance anything, even in notion, to the developer at Gateway that would send the wrong signal if precedent is so important. As we try to work together on this we need to look globally at these other projects and their impact; we will have to be somewhat cautious in terms of the precedent established.

Commissioner Weston said in all fairness to Washington City we do have an established area that we have made some commitments to in the past which makes it different from a totally new development.

Mr. Barker said the city of Washington is making a major contribution to this already in terms of engineering studies they have made and corridors of sewer, water, etc. which they have bonded for.

Mr. Hirschi stated that what Mr. Barker has presented is Green Spring's concept of how they would like the piece of property to be developed. State Trust Lands, however, is not in any sort of agreement with anyone at this time as to how that property should be developed. It is owned exclusively by the State of Utah, managed by the Trust Lands Administration for the benefit of the common schools of Utah and eventually they will determine how that land is to be developed. In the meantime they are very much interested in seeing the interchange completed because they believe it will bring great value to the property which brings more funds to the School Trust Fund, and that is their charge and responsibility. He said they are interested in cooperating however they can in the process, including financially, to see this interchange constructed, and eventually the interchange south of St. George near the port of entry, and any other access that will positively affect the School Trust Lands.

Commissioner Larkin thanked Mr. Barker, Mr. Hirschi and Mayor Clove for the presentation and their comments. He concluded that Washington City was not particularly asking for anything today, but in order for the project to move ahead there will have to be some environmental work done. He noted they had asked him personally for some help in getting that funded.

Director Zwick said preliminary engineering for the interchange was done by Bingham Engineering and that has been advanced to the FHWA. Clint said as far as he was aware, the access point at MP-13 has been approved by FHWA. Walt Running said he would have to check to verify that.

Clint commented that over the years we have faced similar issues as far as the desire to develop a new interchange and each time one of these comes forward we've talked about an appropriate sharing. Staff has talked to the Commission in years past about establishing some sort of policy--some states have either policies, rules or laws which govern the amount of participation for interchanges--but the Commission has felt they would like to look at each one on an individual basis. That may still be the Commission's desire, but he suggested if there is concern about setting a precedent then possibly the Commission may want to consider establishing a policy.

Mayor Clove said if the interchange at MP-13 is not going to happen relatively soon, and Telegraph Street is improved and all the development takes place near SR-9, he believes most of that population base will go right through Washington City to get to St. George. Traffic is already congested and this will magnify the problem.

Commissioner Larkin stressed that Washington City has virtually no tax base other than residential; there is a grocery store, hardware store and a couple of self service stations, but everything else goes to St. George. Washington City is at a real disadvantage in funding because they don't have a tax base. Residents live there, but they shop and work in another community. He feels, for the record, that needs to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Hirschi said State Trust Lands also has property which fronts and in fact surrounds Telegraph Street, especially as it leaves SR-9. The difference with SR-9 and Telegraph Street is that they already have a developer there with a lease, so they are somewhat restricted as to how they can participate. The only reason State Trust Lands was involved on the Gateway project was to make sure there was access. He said he agrees totally with UDOT's position that the developer should pay for that access and in instances where State Trust Lands is the developer, then they should pay for the access. The problem with the Gateway project is that they already have a lease and they are not in a position to dictate to the developer that they participate, so it becomes a negotiation between UDOT and the developer in that location. He said he hoped the developer would be willing to pay those costs because he believes that is appropriate.

Telegraph Road ImprovementsDirector Zwick asked Mayor Clove about the timing on the improvements on Telegraph Road up to intersection of Old US-91/SR-9. Mayor Clove replied they were going to do a band-aid approach from 3rd East to past the RV parks at the city's expense with a portion of participation from the property owners, but that was totally shot down. He said John Van Staveren told him they are looking at 1-1/2 to 2 years from now to do the whole $2 million project out to SR-9.

Bob Hulick said we have a project in the STIP now from 3rd East to Pine Wash in the '95 program. Pine Wash goes past the RV parks and the Black Ridge; it is a local government project.

Chairman Brown called a short break.

ResolutionRehabilitation and Construction of North Cedar City Interchange, Intersection of I-15 and State Road 130Commissioner Larkin explained there were six proposals for the interchange. He had attended two or three public hearings over the last seven years concerning the project and there was support for each of those six different proposals. Finally we told the two cities involved--Enoch and Cedar City--and Iron County that if they could ever come to a consensus on a proposal then we would move ahead with the project. Those three entities have now agreed on proposal number one, although it still doesn't have unanimous support from all the businesses and citizens.

Proposal number one leaves the intersection of I-15 and SR-130 in the existing location and reconstructs SR-130 to allow longer, flatter sight distances. The northbound ramps are reconstructed to provide better angles with SR-130.

Commissioner Weston asked why there was still so much controversy over the proposals. Commissioner Larkin explained the new businesses are on the west side of the freeway. When a truck comes under the freeway or off the off ramp going south now and tries to double back on the frontage road, the turns are so sharp that a truck can't make the turn, so the interchange needs to be reconfigured. The businesses are not particularly happy with proposal number one because now the businesses front the street, but with this proposal the street will go past the back of them. But it is the best compromise.

Clark Mackay explained the whole area around the interchange is held hostage until a decision is made on the interchange. None of the banks will loan money for development of property until the department commits to an option. Clark said at the last public hearing we held the people were fairly evenly split on three options, but we received the support for proposal number one from Enoch and Cedar City and Iron County, so that is the proposal staff is recommending. Approval of this resolution by the Commission will allow those who own property in the area to begin development.

There was additional discussion about the different proposals. Clark explained originally there were actually close to 11 options. The first public hearing eliminated the options for which there was absolutely no support. The second public hearing narrowed the proposals down to six, and when they went through the final public hearing they eliminated three other options completely because there was no support for them. The businesses expressed concern for how a particular option would affect their business, and the people beyond the businesses were concerned about what would happen to the general area, and that was why we were seeing support for two or three different options. Commissioner Larkin indicated that no one was adamantly opposed to option number one.

Clint Topham explained there were a couple of options the Programming staff was definitely opposed to--including building an interchange at a completely different location--because of the high cost. He said proposal number one appears to be within the amount of money the Commission has set aside in the concept development plan for the project, so the Planning staff can support it.

Commissioner Larkin moved to adopt the resolution as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a combined open forum public hearing was held in the City Council Chambers of City Hall in Cedar City by the Utah Department of Transportation on Monday, April 18, 1994, to discuss the location, design features, and the environmental effects of six proposals for modifying the North Cedar City Interchange, the junction of Interstate 15 and State Road 130, in Cedar City, Iron County, Utah. The proposed improvements will require the acquisition of about 31 acres of property and the relocation of one residence and one business, and

WHEREAS, location, design and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the open forum type public hearing, and

WHEREAS, there have been no significant changes in the project concept as a result of the public hearing, and

WHEREAS, the local governments of Cedar City, Enoch City, and Iron County desire the improvements and suggest Proposal One as best meeting community needs, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental, and other effects of the proposed route;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved the Utah Transportation Commission concurs with the local government agencies and supports the location and design features of Proposal One as presented in the environmental document and the public hearing.

AgreementsDesignation of Frontage Roads in Carbon CountyDesignation of Frontage Roads in Price CityClint explained there were frontage roads which were constructed in Price City and Carbon County during the reconstruction of SR-6. We had agreement by the city and county that these roads should be on their systems and not on the State Highway System.

Clint asked for the Commission's preference on whether staff should sign the agreements, or bring back a resolution for Commission approval as has been done in the past. Chairman Brown indicated staff and Commission had discussed the process somewhat and he asked the Commission how they would like to handle it.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion that staff ask the Attorney General's Office to review the process currently being used to determine if it is the most adequate, or if it needs to changed; also if the Commission actually needs to take action these matters. It all relates to the fact that if the statute mandates it, then the Commission probably doesn't need to take further action. He stressed, however, that we would want written acknowledgement by the local governments that they have received notice and that they do have responsibility for the roads so there is not a question of jurisdiction. The motion was seconded by Commission Weston and it passed unanimously that:

Action deferred on agreements for designation of frontage roads in Carbon County and Price City. Staff directed to get opinion from Attorney General's Office on adequacy of process, including written acknowledgement from local government accepting responsibility for the roads, and if it requires Commission action.

Planning and Programming1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - Approval to AdvertiseBob Hulick explained this item had been deferred from the June 17 Commission Meeting and since that time he has been able to update some information in the STIP, but there were still some projects not included, such as the MAG update, the Transit Projects, the National Park update, the Indian Reservation projects update and State Maintenance contracts.

Commissioner Weston asked what would happen if the Commission approved the STIP for advertising without the other information included. Bob replied as far as advertising there was no problem; what we may end up having to do is to advertise jointly with MAG when they do get their TIP ready. Commissioner Lewis asked how close MAG was to having their information ready and Bob said he wasn't sure; last year they were almost a year behind and he hopes they are close to catching up and on schedule this year. He said if he receives the information before we advertise, which he hopes to do, he can add them in.

Commissioner Clyde said he didn't see a project in the STIP about the continuation of Orem Center Street, and also the interchange at US-40 and Midway Junction. Bob indicated there is a project for US-40 from Jordanelle into Heber. The project will accommodate the design of an interchange at that location in the future, but actual construction of the interchange is not included in that project.

Clint added that that project was brought forward by the district with the interchange in it, but it was so costly it was not able to be accommodated in the STIP, so the Commission compromised and directed staff to do a design to accommodate a future interchange, but they have not programmed funds for the interchange. If it is the desire of the Commission that an interchange be added to the STIP, even in the CD phase, staff would need to look at adjustments which would have to be made to other projects.

Regarding Orem Center Street, Bob said if the next section from Center Street to 8th North is not listed, then there is an error in the STIP; it should be included in the CD section. Commissioner Clyde said to make sure it is added.

Commissioner Weston referred to the $250,000 appropriation from the legislature for the EIS on 2700 North in North Ogden. That project didn't appear to be included in the STIP, but Commissioner Weston wanted it added. Even though it is legislatively mandated, it is a project and should be included in our STIP. Clint indicated it was included and was listed as "SR-134/SR-235, 2700 North Corridor in Ogden." Clint continued that Representative Protzman's idea is to get the environmental work done, then he plans to try to get money through the legislature to construct the project. Director Zwick said Representative Protzman makes a strong argument that he was at the top of the list once.

Commissioner Larkin referred to the existing interchange at MP-10 and the proposed interchange at MP-13 in Washington City which were discussed earlier in the meeting, and asked if they were included in the STIP. Clint replied that neither of those interchanges have ever been on the STIP; they were included on the list of unfunded needs

Bob said he wanted to point out that the STIP include $1 million in ferry boat discretionary funds; we plan to apply for an additional ferry on Lake Powell. The usage is increasing so that within three or four years one ferry will not be able to handle it.

Bob said he has updated information on some of the local government projects. Also, at the meeting in Park City earlier in the year the Commission had indicated $3 million for Ports of Entry projects for '95. Bob has met with Sheldon McConkie and Glenn Goodrich and they came up with a list of Ports projects to use that $3 million and that is included in the STIP. Traffic signals have been updated and are included. The Cache MPO has submitted their TIP to Bob and those projects will be incorporated.

Bob also indicated he had been able to update some of the costs on projects to reflect more accurate estimates as directed by the Commission, but there are still some projects in the list which will have increased costs, particularly in the current year.

There was additional discussion about the STIP. Commissioner Weston referred to some joint repair projects in Davis and Weber Counties which were shaded on the list, indicating some problem with FHWA. Bob replied the reason for that is because we don't have a Pavement Management System which specifically addresses those kinds of projects and determines whether their cost is justified. FHWA says we need a Pavement Management System which identifies those projects. Clint indicated we have been dealing with it on a project-by-project basis and FHWA has been approving them that way, but staff is working on getting our Pavement Management System certified. Dave Blake has assured Dave Miles the problem is solved.

Commissioner Weston said he would like staff to report on the Pavement Management System; how they did their study and what was learned from it. He is concerned about how the joint repairs are holding up. There was some discussion about that and staff indicated they would have Dave Blake make a presentation at the next Commission Meeting.

Director Zwick asked about the Bountiful Boulevard study because there are some legislators very interested in the project. He feels it will have to be local funding to bring the project forward. Clint replied a planning study is being done rather than a project study, and UDOT is paying for that study. Director Zwick asked if the project shouldn't be listed in the STIP then. Clint explained in UDOT's Planning area we have funds set aside for planning which don't come through the Commission for programming. While a project is still in the concept phase, or even pre-concept phase as the Bountiful Boulevard project is, we don't list them on the TIP. Director Zwick asked if an appendage could be added to the STIP listing those kinds of projects. Chairman Brown also thought it would be a good idea, so that the list was all-inclusive and included everything we are working on. It was determined the Bountiful Boulevard project would be added to the STIP as a study. Chairman Brown asked if any other studies were being done which should be included and Clint said he couldn't think of any but they would review it.

Director Zwick asked the Commission if they approved of staff bringing forward a revised format, or something in addition to the STIP, which might be the first cut of a more legible piece of information for the legislature. The Commission heartily approved of that. Clint said the list we submit to FHWA has to include the information that is in the current format. However, all this information is kept in a database and we can create a report in almost any format we wish and eliminate the information which would not mean anything to the legislators, such as the project number, etc.

Dale Peterson suggested including a simple reference map indicating the project locations, and staff and the Commission felt that was an excellent idea. Bob said when the STIP is printed they do print a map of each Region/District indicating the project locations.

Commissioner Weston moved to approve advertising the STIP for opportunity for public comment as presented, with the addition of Orem Center Street to 8th North, the study on Bountiful Boulevard, and with any further refinements possible by receipt of the MAG component, transit projects, National Parks projects, Indian Reservation projects, and State Maintenance contracts. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

Approval to advertise 1995 STIP for opportunity for public comment, with the additional of Orem Center Street Project, the study on Bountiful Boulevard and any other refinements possible by receipt of other project information.

Dave Blake to make presentation on Pavement Management System at next Commission Meeting.

Discussion on Preferred Alternative on US-189 in Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to WildwoodClint Topham explained that since the Provo Canyon project was delayed on the STIP because of the high cost, under the direction of the Commission staff has gone back and looked at some different alternatives for the project. The Department has received input from the consultant and would like to present that information to the Commission and make a recommendation to them.

Alan Mecham explained they have gone back as directed and have tried to make some changes in the project which preserves the integrity of what we were trying to do, yet cut the cost. Ed Keane is the project manager and he distributed a packet of information indicating five different design alternates and estimated costs for each, plus photo simulations of tunnels and different portals. He reviewed the information for the Commission.

Ed said staff and the consultant went back and reevaluated the alignment and met last week to discuss it with executive staff. The alignment they would like to recommend and advance is the Alternate No. 1 which is three tunnels adjacent to the river with a total cost, including right-of-way and engineering costs, of $30.84 million; that breaks out to $27.4 million for construction and $3.44 million for right-of-way and engineering costs. This alternate lessens the rock cut heights and minimizes the visual impact of rock cuts somewhat.

He noted that Region 3 feels the tunnels should be tiled because of concern about long-term maintenance cost if the tunnels need to be painted, so tile is included in the cost estimates. Originally we tried to reduce the cost by eliminating the tile which goes up the walls about 15 feet and increases reflectivity. If the tunnels are repainted every ten to 12 years that involves a cost of about $9 to $10 a square yard, and the tunnels are out of operation while that is being done.

Ed said he met with Charlie Thompson of the Division of Wildlife Resources in April and they walked the project. Our desire was to get the alignment of the highway back closer to the river--back to our original alignment. He took Mr. Thompson on the section from Murdock Diversion Dam to Upper Falls and showed him where the plantings were adjacent to the river and it gave him a better feel that we were doing things there. On the section from Upper Falls to Wildwood they seemed to have good negotiation regarding areas that we have been unable to get acceptance on from DWR because we were affecting the riparian vegetation. He said they had a plan sheet with them as they walked the project and they marked critical areas on that plan sheet and gave it to the consultant and directed them to show a new alignment where we went right up to those points.

Ed said if they get approval from the Commission to go ahead, they will go out and stake the project, then they will take representatives from the Division of Wildlife Resources back through the project to make sure they are in agreement and don't have any problems with those critical areas.

Ed discussed the portal structures for the tunnels and referred to the two photo simulations. One photo simulation is shown with a rather large and ornate portal structure which was originally designed to try to mitigate the visual impact of the rock cut faces. What they are now proposing in Alternate No. 1 is a "plain Jane" portal structure that only goes about ten feet above the tunnel itself and will be at right angles. The elaborate portals for the alignment when it was much further into the hill were at angles, making them much larger portal structures. We've saved at least $1.5 million to $2 million by going to the right angle portal structure.

Ed referred to the photo simulation for the proposed tunnel barrels. We have to protect the motorists from rock falls so we have to advance the tunnels out some distance, so we show two ways of doing that, one is a plain concrete barrel which is exposed on the ends. It would save almost $1 million if we were to go to that style. However, the environmental document refers to tunnel portals and Ed has been given the direction that we should be doing tunnel portals. If we go with the exposed concrete barrels he doesn't know how that would affect our project when we go back to the public with it.

The SEIS document also says that tunnel portals will be textured using native rock materials to make them more attractive and natural appearing. Ed said they looked at using form liners to give a simulated rock appearance, but that ran the cost up $1 million. He said what they are proposing in Alternate No. 1 is that we use random board patterns in our forms. The limestone which is in the canyon is rather random, linticular strata, and this would somewhat approximate the natural rock appearance. They also propose staining it black or much closer to the natural rock color.

This alignment also allows angler, or fisherman, access for both parking and a small frontage road. That would be located right at the sharp bend where the existing road goes into Wildwood. The tunnels would be going through that rock cut and we would still be able to use that area for angler parking and access to the river.

Ed said they also looked at costs for the four other alternates. Alternate No. 2 was for two tunnels and a bridge at a cost of $30.4 million. He pointed out that the environmental document states we will not cross the river below Wildwood. This was also an alternate we went to the public hearing with and it was "blown out of the water."

Alternate No. 3 is for three tunnels with alignment away from the river as requested by DWR, creating higher rock cuts and elaborate tunnel portal structures at a cost of $39.64 million. He noted the high rock cuts are very unpopular with the Sierra Club.

Alternate No. 4 is the same alignment as No. 3 with three tunnels away from the river, but it eliminates the portal structures and has concrete barrels protruding instead of the elaborate tunnel portal structures for a cost of $32.64 million.

Alternate No. 5 is for two tunnels for down-canyon traffic and putting a cut at the sharp curve at Wildwood. That the cut would be at least 400 feet long and 130 to 140 feet high. The cost would be $28.22 million.

Chairman Brown asked what the length of the tunnels would be in Alternate 1. Ed replied the three tunnels were 130 feet, 310 feet and 220 feet for a total length of 660 feet. Commissioner Lewis asked how much of the total project cost was for the tunnels. Ed replied the cost for the tunnels was approximately $10,000 per lineal foot, for a total tunnel cost of approximately $7 million. He also noted there is 380,000 cu. yds of excavation at $10 per yard.

Commissioner Clyde said the excavation is the biggest difference in moving the alignment back closer to the river. In the proposal of December '93 the excavation required was 526,000 cu. yds. By moving back closer to the river we have reduced the amount of excavation considerably--almost 40%. With this budget we have been able to put the tile back in the tunnel. Also, because of the reduced rock cut heights, we have been able to adjust the portals considerably, which is also a considerable savings.

Commissioner Clyde said his only concern is that we don't do too much in texturing. The thing we are up against is the SEIS report which says tie-back walls and tunnel portals will be textured using native rock materials.

Commissioner Clyde felt staff and the consultant had done a good job in looking at our greatest concerns: reducing cost by moving the alignment back closer to the river, reduce excavation, reduce length of tunnels, make the tunnels easily maintained, and retain the portals for safety. He commented on the very similar costs for Alternate 1 and Alternate 2, but he felt we would have a hard time selling the bridge concept (Alternate No. 2).

There was additional discussion about the tunnels and the portal structures and the rock cuts. Ed indicated that earlier it had been requested that we put planting ledges in the walls as they are cut. Staff met with three consulting firms whose major job is building tie-back and soil-nailed walls. They also went to some actual sites and they have a report which they will use to show why we will not go with planting ledges. It runs the cost of the walls up appreciably, it creates a tremendous amount of problems during construction, and there are also safety problems associated with them. There is approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of wall on this project.

Walt Running asked where we are with design if we go with Alternate No. 1. Ed replied we were with Alternate No. 3 in December 1993 and it will possibly require as much as 40% redesign to go with No. 1 and will cost at least $500,000 for that redesign.

Clint commented that staff has had recent meetings with Jeff Appel who is an attorney representing several of the environmental groups in the canyon. They are still not in favor of a four-lane road in the canyon and are still threatening law suits. They have mentioned three things specifically which they think we haven't addressed adequately, including the established termini, there are considerable changes which have taken place because of decisions around the CUP which haven't been taken into account, and the Clean Air Act and ISTEA and the non-attainment area in the Provo Canyon area. There was some discussion about those issues.

Clint said we feel we have an environmental document which has stood the tests and we can go ahead with construction, but they could always file some kind of suit against us.

Commissioner Clyde said the issue about Mr. Appel and his groups is that we can expect their challenge no matter what we propose, so we have to decide what we want to do and proceed with it.

Clint said if the Commission decides to move ahead with one of the alternatives, staff does not feel it would be necessary to hold another public hearing. He asked the Commission's feeling on that issue. If one was held it would be a design hearing where we would be presenting the Department's intentions on this design and receiving further public comment.

There was discussion about the hearing issue and previous hearings and meetings which have been held. It was noted one design hearing was already held, and the alignment on Alternate No. 1 is just about where the bridge alignment was, which was the alignment presented at that design hearing. Commissioner Weston expressed a great deal of concern about not holding another hearing.

Alan Mecham stated our intent would be to not hold another public hearing on the environmental document, but we would present the design to the public at a meeting. Commissioner Weston said that would be his preference--an open house design meeting. Alan said Alternate No. 1 with the three tunnels is almost exactly what the public said they wanted at the public hearing held in Orem High School. His feeling is that we have reacted to comments received at that public hearing and would be presenting now in a design hearing the outcome of that public hearing. Commissioner Clyde also felt a design hearing should be held or we would be opening ourselves to severe criticism. Commissioner Weston felt the more information we give the public the better--we need to keep them involved in the design.

Commissioner Clyde asked if Charlie Thompson of DWR had given us any written approval or agreement. Ed replied that he had not. What they discussed in April as they left the project walk-through was that we would stake the critical areas which had been noted on the plans for Mr. Thompson's evaluation.

Commissioner Clyde said he had met with Mr. Thompson and the concerns Mr. Thompson expressed to him have been addressed in what we are doing. Ed said we have certainly tried. We are going to have walls adjacent to the river and only in one location will a wall be near going into the river, but Mr. Thompson didn't see a problem with that. His concern is the vegetation for the young fish, and when there is high water for the young fry to have a place to escape, and also during high water that we wouldn't lose the banks. There was additional discussion about the walls adjacent to the river. Ed said he had also told Mr. Thompson that revegetation is the last thing that is done on a project and he showed him the areas which Mr. Thompson thought were totally devoid of plants, but which had actually been planted--it's just difficult to see the young plants from the roadway. He felt Mr. Thompson realized that we were doing revegetation.

Commissioner Clyde said another of Mr. Thompson's concerns was the south side of the river and not causing any deterioration of it, although he would like some remediation on the north side of the river which has been damaged in the past. Ed said there will be some remediation of the north side with the anglers' access.

Director Zwick asked if Alternate No. 1 still included passages between the tunnels and also the electronic camera surveillance. Ed indicated all of that remained in this alternate, including the land line to UHP dispatch, the alarm systems, fire hydrants, generator, good lighting package and fire protection package; none of that was changed. Director Zwick expressed concern about the expense of tiling the tunnels and damage to those tiles and how unsightly it can look. Ed indicated extra tile will be purchased and stocked for any necessary repairs, but Jersey barrier will also be placed along the tunnels to protect the walls.

Clint stated that staff recommends to the Commission that the preferred alternate be changed to Alternate No. 1, the three tunnels adjacent to the river at $30.84 million.

Commissioner Clyde moved to select Alternate No. 1 as presented as the preferred alternative for Provo Canyon from Upper Falls to Wildwood, and that a design hearing be held on the alternate. The motion was seconded by Commission Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Approval of Alternate No. 1 as Preferred Alternate, Three Tunnels adjacent to the river on US-189 in Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to Wildwood; further that a design hearing be held on the alternate.

Walt Running asked if we were going to proceed with another design on the tunnels at this time, or wait until after the design hearing to proceed. Ed asked for some direction on how to handle that. We may have enough design right now to go to a design hearing, but that will still take us 30 days. Sheldon McConkie said it normally takes 30 days for advertising. Commissioner Clyde felt we should not proceed with more design until after the hearing. Ed concluded some minimal work may have to be done on the plans before the hearing, but it can be ready within 30 days.

Next Commission MeetingThe next Commission Meeting was scheduled for Friday, August 5, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. in Brigham City.

The annual WASHTO Conference is in Vail, Colorado July 16-21. The Forest Highway Tour is scheduled for September 15-16, 1994. Dave Miles will be setting up the tour agenda and making the arrangements.

Appreciation to FHWA Regional DirectorDirector Zwick asked Walt Running to express to FHWA Region 8 Director, Vince Schimmoller, on behalf of the staff and Commission how much we appreciated the recent visit from him as he toured Logan Canyon.

The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance: